It is all a matter of price. I believe (off the top of my head) that the Nazi's produced oil at the equivalent rate of $100 per barrel. As I understand it, the cost now would be roughly $65 per barrel. Basically, if the cost comes way down, or the price of oil goes way up, then it will be worthwhile and private industry will produce oil from coal on their own without the need for the government to get involved.

The big coal reserves are in Wyoming with a moisture content of 35 percent. There is one facility in place that processes the moisture out (and thereby reduces freight costs)moving the BTU value from 8300 to 11,000 per pound. The coal is still coal, tho. The US still has vast quantities of oil shale which might be easier to process into hydrocarbons.

One of Americas problems...sanctions will never be imposed on it and Americans will never appricate the vast natural wealth and resources it has

Having lived on the other side of sanctions first in Rhodesia then South Africa when various products we were dependent on were no longer available we found alternative solutions...granted the cost on somethings increased but it also spurred economic growth were there had been none....

No question in my mind that America could self support its energy needs for the next hundred years...but the enviro nazis will make sure this never happens and politicians will remain to weak to challenge them!

We should use our military force in Saudi Arabia to take over that country. Assign a new moderate leadership. This would prevent the usage of the billions of dollars of petrole revenues to fund terrorists.

Once we finished with Saudi Arabia, we need to invade Iran, and install a moderate leadership. Outlaw any political Islamic parties.

Absolutely correct. Even if the U.S. had all the oil reserves it needs for the next ten million years, it would still import oil from the Middle East if it is cheaper that way.

It was known for years that the tar sands of northern Alberta contained vast oil reserves that probably exceed Saudi Arabia's, but nobody bothered to get it until Suncor developed a relatively inexpensive extraction method back in the 1980s.

Price is the controlling factor. We spend far more in military expenditures than if we spent the same amount for extracting oil from coal or shale. We could easily furnish our own energy converting to nuclear and hydro for power generation and using our present domestic oil supply for cars and trucks.

I read an article here, about a month or two ago, about tar sands in Canada. Apparently there are vast areas of this that are untapped. I visualize tar sands as being on the surface, like on a beach, but I could be mistaken. I know nothing about the technical aspects of refining this resource, but it appears that the mining and shipping part of the equation would be fairly straight-forward.

I'll second (or third) the opinion that price is the controlling factor. When I was a young man just out on my own, gasoline was about 25c a gallon in some places. Our cars weren't as fuel efficient as the cars today, but not as bad as some would have you believe. My 305 cubic inch V8 Mustang got about 25 miles to the gallon at 75 MPH, which isn't bad. Now going forward through hyper-inflation to today, we see gasoline around $1.00 per gallon in some places. Adjusting for inflation, it's cheaper now than 30 years ago. I heard a lecture from an MIT professor in the early 70's that claimed we'd be about out of oil by now and gasoline would be over $10 a gallon if you could find it! But it's nice to know that alternatives like ethanol (pure or additive) and oil from coal can serve as a saftey net if the price of oil should get very high, like over $50 a barrel.

That said, we definitely need a more rational nuclear power program in the country. We shouldn't be using hydrocarbons for generating bulk electricity, since they are much better used as easily transported and stored forms of energy for smaller requirements like vehicles and stand-by power generation. And there's some hope that perhaps in another 30 years, controlled fusion power plants will be practical.

Thanks for looking.... I *was* wondering about the cost of this. I recall a post here around a month or so ago where the Canadians were claiming to have gotten oil-shale extraction costs down to the $12 a barrel range, whereas it had been around $35+ a barrel.

Hello, Robby.... yes, it's all a matter of political will and courage. I live on the Atlantic seaboard, and I know there's gas & oil offshore- we just need to go get the stuff! And there are plenty of energy reserves on the continent, too... coal, oil, and natural gas, there for the taking.

True. It basically means oil can, at worst, triple in price before alternative feedstocks and sources kick in. And if oil shale mining grew to where there were economies of scale, the minimum support price would probably fall to about $40/bbl. But with oil production being cut to try to get to $25/bbl, oil shale will only happen if there is some production cost breakthrough.

Which all goes to show that we will probably be burning oil for 300 more years, at least.

Where does the $10 per gallon number come from? I'd like to see the calculation; I doubt the number. Just for the sake of argument, we'll assume that the only benefit of Desert Storm was securing "the free flow of oil at market prices," as Rush says. Don't forget that the world economic powers chipped in for the cost of Desert Storm, so that the cost is spread over the entire world's consumption of oil. Also, the cost needs to be amortized over the approximately 10 years of stability it bought us. To be fair, you can add in the continuing cost of the no-fly zone and troop presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

I've read several published sources indicating that the oil reserves in the tar sands region of northern Alberta are substantial enough to maintain current levels of consumption in North America for 500 years. The major problem was getting it out -- Suncor developed an extraction method back in the 1980s that allows them to mine it (as opposed to drilling it) for about $12 per barrel, and the area around Fort McMurray has experienced a tremendous boom over the last two decades. As time goes on, the problem is that the oil will be more difficult to extract. The oil sands are between two layers of the earth's crust that angle down from the surface, and as time goes on it will be necessary to extract it from greater depths.

In addition to these issues, you have to keep in mind that Saudi oil is much more "pure" and does not require much refining, while tar sands oil is about as crummy as it gets and must be refined extensively.

No argument from me... even France had the wits after the '73 embargo to launch their Super Phoenix reactor program and now get about 75% of electric power from nuclear plants. We should not have gotten so far behind.

We need a Manhattan type project with one goal. Total energy independence from the rest of the world.

I partially agree. We need to plan for energy independence but it should not be a secret. And, the problem is energy independence, not oil independent. We may be displaying some ignorance or arrogance in thinking in terms of oil only. There are other ways of getting around and heating things up. I've lived in cultures where transportation was not dominated by automobiles. There are advantages to not having to own, maintain, and store one or more cars. And, too many people accept driving and/or commuting an hour or more each way to work. Our culture puts us in a position of being energy dependent. It doesn't have to be that way.

....I recall a post here around a month or so ago where the Canadians were claiming to have gotten oil-shale extraction costs down to the $12 a barrel range, whereas it had been around $35+ a barrel.....

Don't know about the $12 bbl price but here are a couple articles on oil shale... not the easiest process going and still expensive.

However, our society does allow us the choice to drive to and from work, or not, as the case may be. Right now, if the greenies have their way, this choice will be removed, through government policy. Be very careful when you talk about how society can be remolded, as this is a euphemism for government control and or policy which strikes at the very foundation of our freedoms.

Add it in, then. My $10 was a pure hip-shot without factual basis. However, I would suggest the cost of gasoline is underwritten by many other things, including our friendship with the Saudis which many Americans are finding distasteful. The various tar sands projects in Alberta are the sleeping giant in the North American oil patch. Shell, Suncor (Sun Oil of Canada) Koch and a half dozen other oil companies are mining this stuff, cooking it on site and shoving the light crude down the Interprovincial and other crude pipelines into the US and over to Canadian refineries at Sarnia. Within a few years, 850,000 to 1 million bbls/day will flow from this source. Best of all, its in friendly hands--not even the idiots in US Congress can prevent it.

Exxon tried oil shale near Rifle, Colorado in the early 1970's. I think they mined and crushed the stuff into two to four inch topsize, then irradiated the shale to get the oil to come out. Trouble was, the four inch chunks swelled up to six inches, so if the process had been followed (it took $40 crude to payout) the hillsides and mountains would become large spoil piles several hundred feet taller than when the project began.Take that concept to your weekly Greenpeace meeting and whattaya get ?

Yep... remove the shale leave a hole and then fill it back up but the problem is what do you do with the excess material after it's expanded from the heating process.... LOL. I thought the increase size was bigger but I couldn't remember.

Gulf Oil was there also and had prefected their operation to a point that they asked the Feds to raise their production quota from their current level and the Feds told them to get another 80 something enviormental permits... Needless to say Gulf said see you later.

In any mining endeavor, a 25 percent swell factor should be considered in turning bank yards into heaped yards. (Surface mining a four or five foot coal seam will still leave the ground higher, not lower.) Another way to see this is to dig a hole in your back yard, even taking out the rocks you find, then try to get all the dirt back in the same hole--it won't fit. I recall the swelling from Exxon's (and maybe Gulf's too) irradiation was in additional to the usual swell factor. The public relations implications were enormous.

I believe you refer to the Jojoba plant; interestingly, the chemical composition of its oil is compatible with sperm-whale oil and GM used it as a differential additive for their "Posi-Lok" limited-slip rearend and front differentials so that they could better negotiate turns; the whales had become protected and their oil wasn't plentiful, so science came to the rescue.

The above sentence was from memory, so I checked Google.com, here's what I got: Click for site

Coal is being turned into natural gas in Beulah, N.D., the only large-scale synfuels plant in the United States. Lots of byproducts. Years and years of subsidies through fixed-price contracts for natural gas, and eventual financial collapse resulted. However, with natural gas prices elevated - last time I looked -- it apparently is doing ok.

Personally, I doubt it. The staunch enviromentalists have, imo, the characteristics of a religious movement. What would be interesting is to what extent enzymes could be bioengineered to expedite this conversion process. I suspect something like gold-leaching would be possible here too.

i remember in the late seventies and early eighties they were gearing up for colorado oil shale near parachute colorado. hoards of people arrived. construction companies built hundreds of houses.

meanwhile, the left was gearing up for a propaganda war. a journalist friend of mine invited me to go along in an suv to look at the surface mining. the trip was arranged by a college professor who got the mining company to permit him to pass the corporate security. my hosts discussed their propaganda task.

Like all things, price counts... up on #2, RK quoted $65 a barrel; obviously out of the question unless oil goes sky-high.

Just anecdotally, I recall hearing that the Germans had a lot of problems with fuel & lube oil gotten from coal... supposedly it was not as good as that cracked from liquid petroleum.... but this is from a long-ago memory, and not reliable.

The bigger point is, however, that even without going more heavily nuclear ( which I think should be top priority ) we have plenty of energy on our own continent, and offshore, that it is the height of folly to depend on those thugs in the middle east for oil & gas.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.